Aurelie, Toillier (author), Baudoin, Alice (author), and Chia, Eduardo (author)
Format:
Paper
Publication Date:
2014
Published:
Burkina Faso
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 132 Document Number: D11346
Notes:
Paper presented during the 11th European International Farming System Association (IFSA) Symposium, "Farming systems facing global challenges: capacities and strategies," April 1-4, 2014, in Berlin, Germany. 11 pages in proceedings, The study involved "learning regime" as the set of mechanisms that are triggers for and lead to the acquisition of new knowledge and skills, allowing the head of the farm to improve production and management methods. Authors identified four types of regimes, calling into question the assumption of homogeneity of farmers' capabilities to change their routines to acquire new skills. Findings prompted suggestion that creating spaces for exchanges between producers who are at common stages of development or have similar problems, leveraging specific know-how of different ethnic groups and inter-cultural exchanges, and facilitating access to existing information in a given territory seem to be some of the many possible ways of strengthening existing dynamics of learning.
Meul, Marijke (author), Van Middelaar, Corina E. (author), de Boer, Imke J.M. (author), Van Passel, Steven (author), Fremaut, Dirk (author), and Haesaert, Geert (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2014-11
Published:
Belgium: Elsevier
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 161 Document Number: D07816
3pgs, With volatility being an integral part of farming, electric ag equipment could bring some predictability to farmers’ energy use and consumption, say experts. Efforts to electrify transportation in urban areas have been underway for years now, but rural advocates say electric vehicle needs in rural areas have long been misunderstood and ignored.
20 Pages, Springer Online, Aspirations to farm ‘better’ may fall short in practice due to constraints outside of farmers’ control. Yet farmers face proliferating pressures to adopt practices that align with various societal visions of better agriculture. What happens when the accumulation of external pressures overwhelms farm management capacity? Or, worse, when different visions of better agriculture pull farmers toward conflicting management paradigms? This article addresses these questions by comparing the institutional manifestations of two distinct societal obligations placed on California fruit and vegetable farmers: to practice sustainable agriculture and to ensure food safety. Drawing on the concept of constrained choice, I define and utilize a framework for comparison comprising five types of institutions that shape farm management decisions: rules and standards, market and supply chain forces, legal liability, social networks and norms, and scientific knowledge and available technologies. Several insights emerge. One, farmers are expected to meet multiple societal obligations concurrently; when facing a “right-versus-right” choice, farmers are likely to favor the more feasible course within structural constraints. Second, many institutions are designed to pursue narrow or siloed objectives; policy interventions that aim to shift farming practice should thus anticipate and address potential conflicts among institutions with diverging aspirations. Third, farms operating at different scales may face distinct institutional drivers in some cases, but not others, due to differential preferences for universal versus place-specific policies. These insights suggest that policy interventions should engage not just farmers, but also the intersecting institutions that drive or constrain their farm management choices. As my framework demonstrates, complementing the concept of constrained choice with insights from institutional theory can more precisely reveal the dimensions and mechanisms that bound farmer agency and shape farm management paradigms. Improved understanding of these structures, I suggest, may lead to novel opportunities to transform agriculture through institutional designs that empower, rather than constrain, farmer choice.
14 pages, As agricultural conservation priorities evolve to address new complex social-ecological problems and emerging social priorities, new conservation incentive program participation and success can be enhanced by incorporating local stakeholder preferences into program design. Our research explores how farmers incorporate ecosystem services into management decisions, their willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem services programs, and factors beyond compensation level that would influence participation. We conducted three focus groups with 24 participants between January of 2019 and May of 2019 in Vermont. Our study revealed that a strong, intrinsic stewardship ethic motivates farmers to enhance ecosystem service provisioning from their farms, though financial pressures often limit decision-making. These results suggest that programs with sufficient levels of payment may attract participation, at least among some types of farmers, to enhance ecosystem services from farms in Vermont. However, farmers may be deterred from participating by perceived unfairness and distrust of the government based on previous experiences with regulations and conservation incentive structures. Farmers also expressed distrust of information about ecosystem services supply that conflicts with their perceptions of agroecosystem functioning, unless delivered by trusted individuals from the extension system. The delivery of context-specific information on how management changes impact ecosystem service performance from trusted sources could enhance farmers’ decisions, and would aptly complement payments. Additionally, farmers expressed a desire to see a program that both achieves additionality and rewards farms who have been stewards, goals that are potentially at odds. Our findings offer important insights for policy makers and program administrators who need to understand factors that will influence farmers’ willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem service programs and other conservation practice adoption initiatives, in Vermont and elsewhere.
